RIAA Headway Dwindling

JKnowledge writes "This article points to the fact that Yahoo! and various other ISPs are joining in Verizon's fight for the privacy of thier users. Perhaps this silly debacle in the rights of Anonymous Cowards will soon lose steam and sink into the rot that it rose from."

Comments

Good Guys? You really think that...

[1qaz2wsx]

Good Guys? Do you really think that Verizon et. al. are doing this because it is the right thing to do? No way. They are **really** mad because the RIAA is trying to force the cost of enforcing their copyrights onto everyone but themselves. The point taken by Verizon et. al. is right on the mark, the RIAA is not allowing due process; but they are protecting their shareholders, not intentionally "fighting the good fight". The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.

The Beauty of Enlightened Self-Interest

[hillct]

It's great to see this coalition fighting the RIAA and MPAA, but make no mistake about it. Most of these coalition members are acting entirely out of enlightened self-interest rather than fighting the good fight on behalf of internet users. The article is vary clear about this but it bears repeating:

"What the RIAA is really seeking, at the end of the day, is to shift the burden of copyright enforcement from its own members--who apparently would prefer not to alienate potential customers by suing them outright--to an ISP that does nothing more than provide an Internet connection to the customer," the brief says.

[...]

In July, the RIAA invoked the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to force Verizon to turn over the identity of a Kazaa subscriber. Verizon opposed the request, telling a federal district court in Washington that the DMCA's turbocharged subpoena process does not cover people who are participating in a peer-to-peer network like Kazaa. The fact that these companies are acting together to protect their own interests is actually a good thing in that their interests actually do coincide with those of the consumer. This type of synergy is quite rare and should be supported by consumers while they continue to recognize the corporate motives behind it.

--CTH

Re:Who funds the RIAA?

[Billly Gates]

"If we can come up with a better solution for the artist I bet it wouldn't be that difficult to get them to hop on."

Unfortunately the retailers have exclusive contracts forbidding them to sell any cd's from non RIAA approved companies. If a major label likes an artist with an indie background, they will usually just license the music and redistribute it to the retailers so all the artists have to come through them. Unfortunately all the smaller cd stores have all but closed thanks to megastores with exclusive contracts who can sell the cd's cheaper due to rates thanks to the RIAA.

I bet this was probably the RIAA's plan all along. THey own a monopoly through all the distribution channels so they can raise the prices. I also believe consumers have been boycotting them and the RIAA blames this on piracy and continues to fund new laws. It seems like the more they boycott the more they pribe the politicians and the more they can use these figures to make it look like piracy. Either way were screwed.

Re:What does it matter?

[TheConfusedOne]

The problem is the methods that the RIAA is using and powers that they are asking for.

Currently there is a perfectly good system for finding and trying copyright infringers. Courts allow John Doe defendants and there is a whole process for requesting subpoenas to get information about ISP users. Additionally, there are already penalties for copyright infringement.

There is no need for additional laws.

The RIAA wants to completely destroy due process (the DMCA's take down provisions are "guilty until proven innocent"). They want to use poorly written laws to gain maximum advantage. Finally, they try to sneak new abilities into laws designed to fight terrorism.

Meanwhile, they're whining and crying poor and "file sharing is evil" when there's no evidence to back up their claims. In fact, to the contrary, file sharing seems to promote sales.

Finally, the member companies have been found guilty numerous times of price fixing and continue to rip off the artists who "work" for them (though with the ol' "work for hire" clause it's anything but).

So, no it's not bad for them to try to protect what is, unfortunately, legally theirs. The problem is why they should need a whole new set of laws to protect their stuff when everyone else has to deal with the legal system as it currently stands.